CPR3701 Property-MCQs -ALL
TUTS.
Law of Property
UNIQUE ASSIGNMENT NUMBER:
1. Under which of the following categories of things can a motorcycle be classified? Indicate
the incorrect option.
(1) Composite things.
(2) Movable things.
(3) Consumable things.
(4) Negotiable things.
Option (3...
1. Under which of the following categories of things can a motorcycle be classified? Indicate
the incorrect option.
(1) Composite things.
(2) Movable things.
(3) Consumable things.
(4) Negotiable things.
Option (3): INCORRECT, a motorcycle is a non-consumable thing, because it is preserved even
though it is used. Although it is subject to normal wear and tear it can still be classified as a non-
consumable. The value of a consumable thing diminishes considerably by ordinary use. Examples
of consumables are pencils and food.
Option (1): Correct, a motorcycle is a composite thing. A composite thing is made up of constituent
parts, or even of independent things that have been joined together to form a new entity.
Option (2): Correct, a motorcycle is a movable thing, because it can be moved from one place to
another without being damaged or without losing its identity.
Option (4): Correct, a motorcycle is a negotiable thing and can further be classified as either a res
nullius, if it does not belong to anyone or a res alicuius if it belongs to an owner.
(Study Guide pages 21-25)
2. Samira bought a car in terms of an instalment sale agreement from Hoot Car Traders and is
in control of the car. She will pay off the last instalment at the end of January 2021. Which
of the following statements is correct?
(1) Samira is the owner of the car.
(2) Samira is the lawful holder of the car.
(3) Samira has a real right over the car.
(4) Samira has a limited real right over the car.
Option (2): CORRECT, Samira can be classified as lawful holder because she physically controls the
car with the permission of the owner (Hoot Car Traders) in order to derive some benefit from it.
Samira does not consider herself as the owner of the car. She respects the ownership of Hoot Car
Traders and will become owner of the car after she paid the last instalment.
Option (1): Incorrect, Samira is not the owner of the car yet, she will become the owner of the car
after she paid the last instalment. No transfer of physical control will take place, because Samira is
already in physical control of the car, although she is not the owner yet. Once she paid the last
instalment she will become the owner of the car by means of delivery with the short hand.
Option (3): Incorrect, Samira will only acquire a real right – ownership – after she paid the last
instalment.
,Option (4): Incorrect, Samira does not have a limited real right over the car. She has a personal right
against Hoot Car Traders to use the car while she is paying the intalments.
(Study Guide pages 31 and 151)
3. Which one of the following real relationships is always lawful?
(1) bona fide possession
(2) ownership
(3) holdership
(4) mala fide possession
Option (2): CORRECT, the real relationship of an owner to his/her thing is ownership, which is a
lawful real relationship.
Option (1): Incorrect, bona fide possession is the real relationship of a person who is not recognised
as the owner of a thing, because he/she does not comply with the requirements for establishing
ownership, but who has the intention of an owner, on the incorrect assumption that he/she is in fact
the owner. The relationship of a person who accidently takes someone else’s cell phone thinking that
it belongs to him/her can be described as bona fide possession. Although such a person controls the
cell phone bona fide on the incorrect assumption, the relationship cannot be lawful.
Option (3): Incorrect, holdership is a relationship between a person who controls a thing with the
intention to derive a benefit from the thing, with the permission or other valid legal ground to
control the thing. Holdership can, however, be unlawful under certain circumstances. For example if
a person unknowingly concludes an invalid lease contract. Such a person (“lessee”)can be described
as a bona fide unlawful holder.
Option (4): Incorrect, the relationship of a thief who controls a stolen thing can be described as mala
fide possession. Such a relationship cannot be lawful, because a thief is aware of the fact that he/she
is not recognised as the owner of the thing, but controls the thing with the intention of an owner.
(Study Guide pages 150-151)
4. Indicate the correct option with regard to nuisance in the narrow sense.
(1) Nuisance in the narrow sense results in damage to property.
(2) An example of nuisance in the narrow sense is when an owner dumps slate on his/her farm near
a river, which slate washes down the river as a result of heavy rain onto the neighbouring farm,
causing damage to the latter farm.
(3) Regal v African Superslate 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) dealt with nuisance in the narrow sense.
(4) Nuisance in the narrow sense occurs where a neighbour’s right of personality or entitlement of
use is infringed.
Option 4: CORRECT, nuisance in the narrow sense does not necessarily result in damage to
property, but a neighbour’s right of personality or entitlement of use is infringed.
Option (1): Incorrect, nuisance in the broad sense results in damage to property.
, Option (2): Incorrect, this example is an example of nuisance in the broad sense and is based on the
facts of Regal v African Superslate 1963 (1) SA 102 (A).
Option (3): Incorrect, Regal v African Superslate 1963 (1) SA 102 (A) dealt with nuisance in the broad
sense.
5. The following is an example of alienation as an entitlement of ownership:
(1) X can register a bond over his property.
(2) X can burn his book.
(3) X can claim his car from Y.
(4) X can donate his bike to Y.
Option (4): CORRECT, a person is entitled to donate his/her thing. Ownership passes from the
donor (X) to the donee (Y).
Option (1): Incorrect, to register a bond over property is an example of the entitlement to burden a
thing by granting a limited real right (mortgage) over the thing.
Option (2): Incorrect, this is not an example of the entitlement to alienate property, but an example
of the entitlement to destroy property.
Option (3): Incorrect, this is not an example of the entitlement to alienate property, but an example
of the entitlement of an owner of a thing to vindicate or claim his/her thing from anyone who is
unlawfully in control of the thing.(Study Guide pages 45-46)
6. Mike has a right of way (registered servitude), over Lebo’s farm. Mike has a dairy farm and
uses the road over Lebo’s farm to transport his milk to different shops in the area. One day
Mike and Lebo have a difference of opinion, after which Lebo locks the gate that gives
Mike access to the road. Does Mike have any remedies?
(1) No, as owner of the farm Lebo may do with it as she pleases, and she may prevent Mike from
using the road over her farm.
(2) Yes, Mike can institute the actio negatoria against Lebo to open the gate
(3) Yes, Mike’s personal servitude grants him a personal right against Lebo to use the road.
(4) Yes, Mike can institute a mandatory interdict against Lebo to open the gate.
Option (4): CORRECT, Mike as the servitude holder may institute an interdict against Lebo. The
interdict is a speedy remedy that is used when rights have been infringed or are about to be
infringed. The remedy is not only available to owners, to protect ownership, but also to protect
limited real rights such as Mike’s servitude.
Option (1): Incorrect, an owner (Lebo) may in principle do as she pleases with her property, but
ownership may be limited by the law and the rights of others. In this situation her ownership is
limited by Mike’s limited real right (a land servitude).
Option (2): Incorrect, the actio negatoria is a remedy that is available to the owner (Lebo) against the
holder of a servitude (Mike) who exceeds his/her servitude entitlements or against a person who
wrongfully claims servitude entitlements.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper Excellentstudyresources001. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,77. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
